RAJIV RANJAN Vs. BYFORD LEASING LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Byford Leasing Ltd. , hereinafter referred to as the Company, advertised a prize wining-cumpurchase of car on instalments basis scheme. The salient features of the scheme were that the entrant had to deposit the stated amount by 22.12.90. A draw of lots was to be held on 24.12.90 at the time and venue mentioned in the ad. The first prizewinner was to be given the car booked by him free of charge. There were other prizes including six consolation prizes. Those not successful in the draw could get the car on payment of the prevailing price either on cash down basis or on instalments managed through Citi Bank. The contestant could apply for any of the well-known brands, which were available at that time. With regard to the margin money deposited by the entrant the same could be withdrawn only after expiry of three years and was to carry interest @ 7% p. a. from after six months of the date of draw. The case of the complainant, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, was that he deposited Rs.33,197/- on 20.9.90. He applied for refund of the amount on 1.10.93. A legal notice was sent by him dated 14.9.94. In reply to the notice, the Company offered to refund the amount after deducting Rs.3,000/- as service charges and with interest @ 7% p. a. in terms of the contest advertised by it. The complainant, feeling dissatisfied, filed a complaint, which has given rise to this appeal. His case was that the Company failed to deliver Maruti Standard A. C. car applied for by him and was liable to pay the difference in the price prevailing at the time of filing of the complaint and the price prevailing at the time of booking. He further claimed interest on the amount deposited @ 24%. besides Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and mental torture and Rs.2,000/- as costs.

(2.) The plea of the opposite party was that the amount deposited by the complainant was duly acknowledged and he was given Contestant No.715. His name was included in the draw of lots held on 24.12.90. The complainant did not win any prize. The names of those, who were successful in the draw of lots, was duly published in the newspapers. It was further pleaded that the complainant never came forward to ask for delivery of Maruti Standard. A. C. car either by making cash-down payment or on instalment basis through loan to be arranged through Citi Bank. On the contrary, in terms of the scheme, he waited for the period of three years to expire and applied for refund on 1.10.93. The case required time to be processed in order to see which of the entrants to the contest had already been given cars whether on total payment or on instalment. It was further stated with regard to the legal notice dated 14.9.94, that a reply was sent on 3.10.94 offering to refund the amount with stipulated 7% interest in terms of the scheme. According to the Company, therefore, there was no deficiency in service and the complaint deserved to be dismissed.

(3.) On a consideration of the material before it, the District Forum recorded the following findings: (1) The money was not deposited by the complainant for booking a car simpliciter as distinguished from entering the contest under the Prize Winning Scheme. (2) There was no basis to hold that the complainant's name was not included in the draw. (3) The complainant was not keen to buy the car for which he had made the application inasmuch as he never contacted the Company for taking the car either on cash-down basis or on payment of instalments under financing scheme through the Citi Bank. (4) The complainant applied for refund of the amount almost immediately after the expiry of three years in terms of the conditions of the scheme.